Posted:24th Oct 2008Following on my incident in the Apple Store, I have updated my Facebook status according. One of my friend challenged me that music is Maths, a statement which I partially agree because EVERYTHING is maths. However, he later commented that music is the link between human and the "universal truth" and it has aided human in understanding maths and science. Now to me, music never had much spiritual significant for me. Our enjoyment in it merely derived from a combination of our natural desire for Pattern Spotting and as stimulant to our sophisticated auditory system, elements honed by our progress through natural selection. Just like a dog enjoys playing a game of fetch because it is engaging the "tracking system" within its brain necessary for hunting, the reward element would encourage practice and refinement and further its chance of survival. Similar example would be human needs to seek adrenaline rush which have been the driving force for prehistoric men to venture out to forage for food. Also to me, music serves the purpose of social cohesion whereby a group of people can be "synchronised" to the same auditory reference points and therefore develop a sense of bonding.

This is the way I see it but is there another way? Is there something magical or spiritual about it?

In my opinion, music is one binding element for humanity. No matter who you are you enjoy a certain type of music. Even the deaf enjoy music! (Yes, that's true)

When I go to concerts, I see no hate towards others, I see no biases, I just see peace and harmony... people coming together to do something they all enjoy, listen to music and groove! If anything could help with world peace, aside from some people realizing that the organisms in other countries are people too, it would be music. IMHO.

Returning to a unique state of EquilibriumLocation: Adelaide, South Australia

Total posts: 3289

Posted:24th Oct 2008music is poi / poi is music

fractals are artistic...golden ratio, Fibonacci, etc

can it be called music if its arrhythmic?

does this all relate to our earliest memories of the heartbeat? if it does, then why is it that no other animals like music (finding reported in recent New Scientist)...is it just a process of pattern matching, and how does transcendental mediation fit in?

All of these questions and more discussed ad infinitum on psytrance and similar electronica mailing lists back in the day

(not saying I dont like this disscusions - I do)

--Help! My personality got stuck in this signature machine and I cant get it out!

Posted:24th Oct 2008I treat music both as maths and art. As an engineer it is my job to use my knowledge of maths, acoustics & physics to deliver someone elses artistic vision to the listener. (Its not all turning knobs and pushing faders ;-) )

I'm particularly fascinated by psychoacoustics (as we have briefly discussed Loewan) at the moment. Very little is still understood about houw we interperet music. In fact the very way that we 'hear' a sound once it becomes an electrical impulse could be an entirely subjective experience (although we do know that there is a fairly standard 'human' response across the frequency spectrum).

Back to the question at the top though. Ludwig Van Beethoven composed some of his most famous pieces after he had gone almost completely deaf. He could actually write a score based on the mathematical relationship between notes and chords.

Sound conveniently tidies itself into nice mathematical sequences too. For example: what we percieve as an increase of pitch of one octave is a doubling of frequency (cycles per second of a wave) IE. 440Hz is concert A (the A above middle C), one octave up to the next A is 880Hz.

I could talk about this all day and not get bored but I can already see some of the people that have wondered into this post falling asleep in the corners. But if anyone wants to know more about sound just ask. I spend all my time immersed in it so I'll be happy to help.

Posted:24th Oct 2008I havent really had a chance to read this, I'm tired as hell, but I'd like to mention Syd Barrett, he used a lot of interesting timing methods... switching between timings and that kind of thing... and most of it was half in tune half out of tune.

And Strawberry fields forever is in 4/4 except for the orchestral part which is in 3/4 (I think thats right, I know they're different)

Posted:25th Oct 2008There seems to be a misconception (on my side admittedly)...

as I see it you can explain music, using maths - you can take a sound and apply a certain note to it... who would claim that there has been a note before there has been a sound to it?

Now we can break down the sounds and explain how they work together, the way they get transmitted and the way humans perceive them - but the individual connection we're making, when listening to a sound or to a more complex construct, a sequence of sounds is completely individual. Some enjoy harmonics, others only get on with dis-harmonics, some love Mozart, others can't deal with him, but enjoy Metallica or freejazz...

However, as I see it, the claim that "music is maths" would equal the claim that "language is letters"... the sounds have been in place way before we invented letters and notes... or did I really miss the point completely?

Posted:25th Oct 2008i have heard a song based on algorithms made from david bowie songs, it wasnt bad but it didnt have any singing and while sounding very bowie-esque it just didnt have that david bowie magic. so yer i think its possible. i could have believed it was written rather than computated

Posted:25th Oct 2008Originally Posted By: Pyrolificdoes this all relate to our earliest memories of the heartbeat? if it does, then why is it that no other animals like music (finding reported in recent New Scientist)...

Really? Is that online to read somewhere?- just curious, my housemate's dog seems to really enjoy certain music- though that could just be a pitch/pack howl sort of response.. Also I seem to recall a study on birdsong complexity ( I would look up the species, but it's late and I'm half asleep as it is) which concluded that female birds on at least one species were actively selecting what we would class as the most musical mates..

Can I just add another comment about some people liking different music- tastes change as well- we often appreciate more complexity as we get older (apologies if this offends anyone who's favourite song is still 'the wheels on the bus'..) I dunno; music is art, but is art maths?

Posted:25th Oct 2008Originally Posted By: hamamelis Can I just add another comment about some people liking different music- tastes change as well- we often appreciate more complexity as we get older (apologies if this offends anyone who's favourite song is still 'the wheels on the bus'..)

and on that... I was just reading, the day before yesterday (I love such synchronicities) about a concept known as 'emancipation of the dissonance'; introduced by the ground-breaking turn of the century, avant-garde composer, schoenberg to describe the process whereby, over time, certain harmonic combinations that were once considered dissonant, become "emancipated" as we become acclimatised to it.

on the mathematics/music thing; I've always seen them as inextricably linked; probably because I've played music for most of my life and part majored in pure maths.

oh... and ditto to pretty much all of what seye said, also; although it should be mentioned that 440Hz, our notion of an octave and western music's tuning method of choice, equal temperament (each note is a logarithmically equal distance from each other), are merely our arbitrary interpretation of what is "musical".

many alternative methods of tuning an instrument exist, be they equal temperament or, as is often found in eastern music, just intonation (where the frequencies of each note are related by ratios of whole numbers), or something else entirely.

indian music, for instance, uses just intonation and divides the octave into a series of 22 "microtones" and sounds, to many western ears, rather jarring in the initial instance.

in all of the above, however, the basis for the division of the audible spectrum of frequencies is mathematical.

Interesting to observe (for my individual perception) that just a few years or a decade ago I couldn't stand either... and now I find pleasure listening to both... no, not at the same time - even though I might want to give it a try.

Further it might be interesting to note, that unborn babies respond to different kinds of music very differently.... check classicalmusic.org

And according to Philipp Dorell's theory:

Originally Posted By: whatismusic.infomusic is a "super-stimulus" for the perception of musicality, where "musicality" is actually a perceived property of speech. "Musicality" refers to the property of music that determines how "good" it is, how strong an emotional effect it has, and how much we enjoy listening to it.

The theory implies that ordinary speech also has this property, in a manner which may vary as a person speaks. The musicality of speech is much more subtle than that of music, but it provides important information which the listener's brain processes (without conscious awareness of the processing), in order to derive some information about the internal mental state of the speaker. This information is applied to modulate the listener's emotional response to speech, and this accounts for the emotional effect of music.

What distinguishes the super-stimulus theory from all other serious attempts to explain music scientifically is that it starts from a simple assumption that music perception must be an information processing function, and this assumption results in quite specific explanations of how major aspects of music such as scales, regular beat and harmony are processed in the brain. It is the first theory to explain the perception of musical scales without a priori assuming the existence of musical scales. (The theory has to do this, because it is a theory of music perception as an aspect of speech perception, and musical scales do not occur in normal speech.)

Posted:26th Oct 2008I makes me some music, so I figure I should chime in.

Music is organized noise. I think that's all there is too it. It's sounds that are arranged.

I've made some math oriented songs before, math has it's own degree of elegance.Originally Posted By: meshunderlayOnly real problem I have with music being as mathematical as it is (see Techno, House, Trance, Jungle, Industrial, etc etc....) Is that it's all, for the most part, 4/4.

Someone needs to spice it up a bit, throw in a little 3/4 or something silly like... I don't know 7/9... Hehe, 7 of 9.... sorry, I'm a geek. I take issue with Industrial being mentioned there. Industrial is NOISE music.

House isn't really math based it just literally IS 4/4 music. Four On The Floor is one of the typical requirements for defining a house song. Techno is just a form of house that tries to be inhuman.

I think one of the reasons music has it's effect is that it the stuff of existence. If Hawking is to be believed life is just full of vibrating things anyway right? Music is just air vibrating in a specific way. For some reason people also have a weirdly uniform concept of pitch. People can often predict the next note in a song, as it jut makes sense.

We are sorry but access to this resource is currently forbidden. If you are trying to access what you believe is a valid page or file on this site, please contact the administrators for further assistance.

We are sorry but access to this resource is currently forbidden. If you are trying to access what you believe is a valid page or file on this site, please contact the administrators for further assistance.

Balls

I was just gonna link to the files.These two songs are both incomplete and now never finishable due to file loss. Both are made only from one single sample. One is the Amen Break, the other is a free beat in fruity loops.http://www.furaffinity.net/view/823386/br>http://www.furaffinity.net/view/797073/

Posted:28th Oct 2008As music is maths statement i do agree very much as i play a whole ton of music on tehr up-right bass. (tehr is my the btw)

But in case of electronic music there is more math too it then any others. Find a decent DJ or any person making a track where its beats repeated and combined on each other in a way that it sounds very nice. Now take the number 8 (or 7 i forget) and count 1 2 3..and so on. Every 8 beats it should change or add the beat. Witch in theory makes the music more of a math equation.

This can also work with many other types of music too. but i don't want to bore you readers.

/End of my rant

ANGER IS A GIFT.You have the right to demand better!

Originally Posted By: Mr Majestikhear the news about the guy in adelaide on the weekend who walked stilts 20m high? broke the world record by taking four steps.

Any traditional composition is pre-marked to tell you in what fashion you count it. Percussion itself is a series of detailed counts and divisions. Danny Carey of Tool has used counts as large as a compound 35/8 time signature.

Not to mention triplets, or that each note is one "half" or "whole" step away from the previous. Sound itself is frequency. A lot of of DJ's and producers will admit to being very...non-mathy when making music because they do it by intuition. Steve Reich (look him up if you don't know) has said as much of his own work.

Others, like aphex twin, obviously put a lot of thought into some of their work.

Make of it what ya will. Other than dancing, music is my other passion so I could probably end up rambling for a while. If any one gives me the chance I probably wont stop...

Posted:28th Oct 2008Well, since music is so varied in nature and changes with time then surely it holds no magical or spiritual value to it then? And what part does it have in evolution of different species? Are musical prowess and talent a sense of one's ability to compute sequence and therefore reflect his/her ability to recognise and foresee patterns?

And how is "art" defined? An intrepid into unknown/undefined forms of expression?

Sorry for so many question but there seems to be a lot of musicians and artists here and being a pure engineer/mathematician/scientist, I love to hear what you guys think.

Posted:28th Oct 2008Originally Posted By: Mr Majestiki read the title of this thread and couldnt help thinking it..

WHAT IS LOVE? baby dont hurt meeee, dont hurt me, no more *shimmys*

That's simple: A chemical inside your brain is released which encourages bonding with prospects of cooperation leading to an enhanced chance of survival and passing on of one's genes. People can go on and on about the spirituality and magic behind it all but the researches are all there. Researches on people with brain damage illustrates perfectly the essence of love (or lack of it due to specific part of brain being damaged); cesarean birth leading to absence of a specific hormone resulting in postnatal depression and later parenting issues; and well, there is always MDMA.

Posted:28th Oct 2008Originally Posted By: loewanSorry for so many question but there seems to be a lot of musicians and artists here and being a pure engineer/mathematician/scientist, I love to hear what you guys think.

Now that explains the statement "music is maths"...

1) Well, since music is so varied in nature and changes with time then surely it holds no magical or spiritual value to it then?

Can't find the logic in this statement. Why would music not hold "magical or spiritual value" just because it varies in nature and changes with time? Some music remains the same over times. Take Hare Krishna songs or Gregorian chants...

2) And what part does it have in evolution of different species?

Hard to say, many species use sounds (birds, whales for example) - isn't it our minds that fill the gaps and identify it as "music" when all it is, is some form of communication? Crows also use sounds but our minds don't feel as receptive to their 'noise' as to identify it as "music"/

3) Are musical prowess and talent a sense of one's ability to compute sequence and therefore reflect his/her ability to recognise and foresee patterns?

Possibly so and it might get influenced by music your mother listened to, when pregnant - classical music seems to build up certain connections in the brain, more than other styles.

4) And how is "art" defined?

Maybe the most controversial of all topics...

definition of "Art" according to the Stanford encyclopedia of Philosophy

Posted:28th Oct 2008Originally Posted By: meshunderlayOnly real problem I have with music being as mathematical as it is (see Techno, House, Trance, Jungle, Industrial, etc etc....) Is that it's all, for the most part, 4/4.

jungle is not 4/4. its part of the family of breakbeat dance music, which i do find rhythmically more interesting than most 4/4 fare.

go listen to some squarepusher if you want some wierd time signatures.

Posted:30th Oct 2008Originally Posted By: LoewanWell, since music is so varied in nature and changes with time then surely it holds no magical or spiritual value to it then?I wouldn't use the word magical, but people become attached to it.There's actually a theory that you can engage the brain with very fine frequencies, too low to hear. They are made by dissonance between two notes, and these frequencies are supposed to interact with us.We seem to respond in a rather specific fashion to certain types of sound.

Quote: And what part does it have in evolution of different species?GOOD QUESTIONMy only guess is that we naturally use specific notes/tones in certain moods and thus maybe we associate those tones when heard elsehwere? It's a guess, but it's easiest to try and apply anything to survival, so if a roar has a dissonant sound, perhaps that's why we don't like dissonance?

Quote:Are musical prowess and talent a sense of one's ability to compute sequence and therefore reflect his/her ability to recognise and foresee patterns? Well if you see the link I posted (the TED Talk with the pianist) he shows that some patterns are very simple. Most people recognize the logical ending point of a simple musical scale. In my own personal experience though I find some people can see rhythm patterns better, naturally. It can be learned. My guitar teacher said when he was young he had no concept of rhythm and so his parents made him take drum courses, he has since learned it well. I find that perhaps this is probably more an exposure thing than genetic. That's hard to say though. Anyone can learn it, and I don't have data to back up the idea.

Quote:And how is "art" defined? An intrepid into unknown/undefined forms of expression?I have defined art as; An intentional act of expression.It's simple. Art need be intentional for me. I need to know someone did that on purpose, a tree falling in a way that looks nice isn't art it's probability. As for expression, I suppose that's my version of the subjective aspect of an art definition. IT simply needs to express something though. Brian Eno's Music for Airports expresses a sense of calm and wellness with the intent of creating a placid air passenger. An abstract painter may specifically endeavor to make something that can coherently bring a color palette together in a room. Martial artists express mastery of their body.etc.

Quote:Sorry for so many question but there seems to be a lot of musicians and artists here and being a pure engineer/mathematician/scientist, I love to hear what you guys think. Questions are the spice of...conversation.

Originally Posted By: simtaOriginally Posted By: meshunderlayOnly real problem I have with music being as mathematical as it is (see Techno, House, Trance, Jungle, Industrial, etc etc....) Is that it's all, for the most part, 4/4.

jungle is not 4/4. its part of the family of breakbeat dance music, which i do find rhythmically more interesting than most 4/4 fare.

go listen to some squarepusher if you want some wierd time signatures.